Woodsequipment.online

The timeline behind woodsequipment.online

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Woods Equipment Company v. Mary Anderson, Paralell Inc Case No. D2026-0700 1. The Parties The Complainant is Woods Equipment Company, United States of America (the “United States”), represented by Foley & Lardner LLP, United States. The Respondent is Mary Anderson, Paralell Inc, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <woodsequipment.online> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2026. On February 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 19, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy User #635c637a, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 20, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 20, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 25, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 18, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is in the business of manufacturing tractor attachments and replacement parts for the agricultural and grounds maintenance industries in the United States and internationally. It owns the trademark WOODS, for which it enjoys the benefits of registration (e.g., United States Reg. No. 1187361, registered on January 26, 1982). According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on January 14, 2026. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send and receive email messages in an effort to deceive customers of the Complainant, thereby seeking to engage in fraudulent financial activity. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the WOODS mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. The disputed domain name incorporates the WOODS mark in its entirety with the term “equipment”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s WOODS mark. The WOODS mark remains recognizable for a showing of confusing similarity under the Policy. page 3 The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s marks in any domain name, (2) neither the Respondent nor any associated person or entity is commonly known as <woodsequipment.online> or any derivation thereof, and (3) the Respondent has never made any bona fide offering of goods or services using the disputed domain name but has instead used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant in furtherance of attempted fraudulent financial activities. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent's favor. The use of a domain name for illegal activity such as impersonation or passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Based on the way that the Respondent has specifically targeted the Complainant sending of emails that impersonate the Complainant, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant and its marks when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to send fraudulent email messages attempting to solicit financial payments allegedly on behalf of the Complainant. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third UDRP element. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <woodsequipment.online> be transferred to the Complainant. /Evan D. Brown/ Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: March 31, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.